As there has been talk of 'thorough testing' and in light of the recent
posts trying to steer this thread into a different direction I thought I'd
share my own recent tests. Not really Rev related, but as I'm sure everyone
here does regular and thorough backups this may be of interest to one or tw
From: Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Hi,
Sounds like a good excuse to write a "filter" application - in RunRev
of course!
I don't think that Stephen receives the list via digest though.
I do read the list as a digest. I would have expressed my annoyance
if Stephen hadn't beaten me to it.
Jerr
This is a test. I'm sure it's imperative Dave 'get in' the last word. So,
let's see.
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.r
Hi,
Sounds like a good excuse to write a "filter" application - in RunRev
of course!
I don't think that Stephen receives the list via digest though.
All the Best
Dave
On 23 Mar 2007, at 17:42, Bill wrote:
Hi
I found out from a complaint about one of my posts that some of the
readers
of
Hi
I found out from a complaint about one of my posts that some of the readers
of this list get it in digest form instead of individual emails and it is
difficult for them to ignore posts by headings (they have to scroll through
them). So that might be why they're complaining. After I got the comp
Hi,
I really don't understand why you get so upset, if you don't like the
subject just don't read it. There are loads of topics on this list I
don't read them all. Most of them in fact stay unread.
All the Best
Dave
On 23 Mar 2007, at 16:21, Stephen Barncard wrote:
We're only having a bi
We're only having a bit of fun!
fun for you, obviously. Annoying for most of us.
None of it is meant with any real venom well not on my part anyway
and I'd be shocked if Richard felt differently!
Take Care and Have a Great Weekend!
All the Best
Dave
--
stephen barncard
s a n f r a n c
We're only having a bit of fun! None of it is meant with any real
venom well not on my part anyway and I'd be shocked if Richard felt
differently!
Take Care and Have a Great Weekend!
All the Best
Dave
On 23 Mar 2007, at 15:11, Heather Nagey wrote:
:) ok
Guys... you heard the man...
Hi,
Here is the original script:
on doExport
local tNum
local twID
local tFol
local tDest
local myImageData
put text of fld "number" into tNum
put the windowID of this stack into twID
put text of fld "export folder" into tFol
if there is not a folder tFol then
answer "Expo
On 23 Mar 2007, at 15:00, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Dave persisted:
On 22 Mar 2007, at 18:29, Richard Gaskin wrote:
In the ten years I've been working with this engine this is the
first verified leak I've seen. Let's be generous and say that
maybe one or two others might have been discovere
Dave wrote:
Took me 10 minutes to build the test for the export snapshot command and
2 minutes to run it.
And, as it turns out, we were all wrong. There is a leak, and they will
fix it, but the reason there is a leak makes perfect sense.
The bug I posted about this problem only a day or two
:) ok
Guys... you heard the man...
I think you've both made your point/s, as thoroughly as is reasonably
possible. Its been an interesting discussion. Let this be the last
data point, please. Shake hands and agree to differ amicably.
Warm Regards,
Heather
Heather Nagey
Customer Servi
Dave persisted:
On 22 Mar 2007, at 18:29, Richard Gaskin wrote:
In the ten years I've been working with this engine this is the
first verified leak I've seen. Let's be generous and say that
maybe one or two others might have been discovered in that time.
Even then, over a decade that's re
ARRGHHH!!!
MAKE IT STOP, PLEASE!
Dave continued:
However stress testing is not an accomplishment
at all it's really easy, that's why I really
can't see why you are going on about it, I do it
without even thinking about it! In fact I was
absolutely gobsmacked that you were
On 22 Mar 2007, at 18:29, Richard Gaskin wrote:
Dave continued:
I suppose my point is that in order to have a beta test, you need
to have gone thru the steps to get there. It's no good producing
mountains of code, doing little or no testing at the development
phase and then throwing t
Richard,
I typically hate to post 'me too' posts, but I have to agree with your most
thorough analysis of this problem. While I haven't used the engine yet for
10 years, I have logged quite a number of hours and commercial project
releases with it. I've never had a problem with memory leaks. I be
Dave continued:
I suppose my point is that in order to have a beta test, you need to
have gone thru the steps to get there. It's no good producing
mountains of code, doing little or no testing at the development
phase and then throwing that out for beta.
With 20/20 hindsight it's easy to
On 21 Mar 2007, at 18:29, Björnke von Gierke wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007, at 18:47, Dave wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007, at 15:17, Björnke von Gierke wrote:
...
Actually we started the discussion at cross purposes I think. I
was talking about first level soak (stress) testing in the
development proc
On 21 Mar 2007, at 18:47, Dave wrote:
On 21 Mar 2007, at 15:17, Björnke von Gierke wrote:
...
Actually we started the discussion at cross purposes I think. I was
talking about first level soak (stress) testing in the development
process before the code is checked in, before it goes to QA a
On 21 Mar 2007, at 15:17, Björnke von Gierke wrote:
Ok, if they don't have enough money to pay me now, then they can
owe it to me, and, *if* and when they do make lots of money they
can pay me then. How does that sound? I would charge £15.00 per
hour, that's a lot cheaper than they are a
On 21 Mar 2007, at 15:38, Dave wrote:
On 20 Mar 2007, at 20:44, Stephen Barncard wrote:
Dave wrote:
RunRev can help by having Beta cycles whose length is more in
keeping with industry norms, but the actual testing can't be done
by them; there are just too many possibilities.
I'd be happy
21 matches
Mail list logo
